Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 undertow wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 undertow wrote:

Some examples of weapons / attacks / special rules that don't work:
Mawloc's Terror from the Deep - Doesn't work because it uses a blast template.

Actually, this is incorrect. It doesn't work because the FAQ says it doesn't work. It doesn't give a reason, it just says, "No."
Also, it's a Large Blast Marker, not a blast template.

Are you this pedantic in real life?

It's not a huge logical leap to assume that it doesn't work because it uses a blast marker.

It depends
It's still your assumption that's why it doesn't work, and that assumption isn't completely supported. There's implications, sure. There's also implications that it doesn't work simply because they said it doesn't work. My point is that saying it doesn't work because it's a blast marker is incorrect - it was incorrect before the FAQ and it's incorrect after the FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote:

 undertow wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 undertow wrote:

Some examples of weapons / attacks / special rules that don't work:
Mawloc's Terror from the Deep - Doesn't work because it uses a blast template.

Actually, this is incorrect. It doesn't work because the FAQ says it doesn't work. It doesn't give a reason, it just says, "No."
Also, it's a Large Blast Marker, not a blast template.

Are you this pedantic in real life?

It's not a huge logical leap to assume that it doesn't work because it uses a blast marker.

It depends
It's still your assumption that's why it doesn't work, and that assumption isn't completely supported. There's implications, sure. There's also implications that it doesn't work simply because they said it doesn't work. My point is that saying it doesn't work because it's a blast marker is incorrect - it was incorrect before the FAQ and it's incorrect after the FAQ.

While I agree that it doesn't spell out exactly why it doesn't work, I'm of the opinion that it does more to support the 'no' for LotS hitting fliers than it does to support the 'yes'.

 undertow wrote:
While I agree that it doesn't spell out exactly why it doesn't work, I'm of the opinion that it does more to support the 'no' for LotS hitting fliers than it does to support the 'yes'.

Agreed. I just also feel it's good to be accurate when citing examples.

Quick experiment:
Turn to p50 of your rulebook. Read the first sentence under weapon profiles. So, we need strength, ap and how to resolve the attack (range and type). So, we're inflicting S8 AP5 hits d6 times with unlimited range. Unless you're going to argue that weapons are identical but tabulated, we are definitely looking at a weapon and thus covered by the FAQ. If it's not a weapon, you cannot use the armour penetration rule from p73 ("once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a d6 and add the WEAPON'S strength") and thus cannot hurt flyers anyway. Note also that taking the not a weapon if not tabulated line means you cannot resolve ANY special rule with a given strength value against ANY vehicle as you cannot pen it, which is obviously incorrect. So it's undeniably a weapon and thus covered.

It doesn't work. Arguing something that inflicts damage isn't a weapon is an absurdity in both the rules and using the definition of a weapon. All of these cases are covered so stop trying to exploit the rules.

Eyjio wrote:
Quick experiment:
Turn to p50 of your rulebook. Read the first sentence under weapon profiles. So, we need strength, ap and how to resolve the attack (range and type). So, we're inflicting S8 AP5 hits d6 times with unlimited range. Unless you're going to argue that weapons are identical but tabulated, we are definitely looking at a weapon and thus covered by the FAQ. If it's not a weapon, you cannot use the armour penetration rule from p73 ("once a hit has been scored on a vehicle, roll a d6 and add the WEAPON'S strength") and thus cannot hurt flyers anyway. Note also that taking the not a weapon if not tabulated line means you cannot resolve ANY special rule with a given strength value against ANY vehicle as you cannot pen it, which is obviously incorrect. So it's undeniably a weapon and thus covered.

It doesn't work. Arguing something that inflicts damage isn't a weapon is an absurdity in both the rules and using the definition of a weapon. All of these cases are covered so stop trying to exploit the rules.

So a rhino that can ram is a weapon then?
So when I roll weapon destroy, I need to randomize between the storm bolter and the rhino?

A blanket use of that suggestion doesn't seem to work.

-Matt

@Eyjio - This looks good. I came to a similar understanding of LotS's lightning's "weapon" profile. Range and Type are a little fuzzy, but that's more because it is a special rule rather than any lack of clearness about how make it work.

I already cited the general principle laid out 'tabulated' profile vs text based profile, and cited the Necron update "You’ll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

My only question would be "Why are we looking at the snap shot rule?" The Hard to Hit rule (p81) applies the restriction of Snap Shot (p13) to any shooting attack against a zooming flyer.

LotS does't generate shooting attacks. (No LoS, originating model, ranged weapon, BS, template, blast marker, AoE, beam, nova, or maelstrom)
So if it's not a shooting attack, why must it Snap Shot?

The faq entries on Sweep Attack and Terror from the Deep are good, solid data points to start a RAI argument in favor of the NO position.

Until Hard to Hit is errata'd (or at least faq'd), I will have a have a hard time saying anything more certain than 'maybe' to the RAW NO position

As HawaiiMatt noted, you cannot assume that everything doing damage must be able to fit a tabulated weapon for at - because if you do, suddenly every Tank can be destroyed on a Weapon Destroyed.

Seems pretty obvious that it can't to me. There may be ambiguity in the RAW but RAI it seems like only "normal" shooting attacks should be able to hurt flyers, unless an exception is explicitly spelt out.

foolishmortal wrote:
@Eyjio - This looks good. I came to a similar understanding of LotS's lightning's "weapon" profile. Range and Type are a little fuzzy, but that's more because it is a special rule rather than any lack of clearness about how make it work.

I already cited the general principle laid out 'tabulated' profile vs text based profile, and cited the Necron update "You’ll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

My only question would be "Why are we looking at the snap shot rule?" The Hard to Hit rule (p81) applies the restriction of Snap Shot (p13) to any shooting attack against a zooming flyer.

LotS does't generate shooting attacks. (No LoS, originating model, ranged weapon, BS, template, blast marker, AoE, beam, nova, or maelstrom)
So if it's not a shooting attack, why must it Snap Shot?

The faq entries on Sweep Attack and Terror from the Deep are good, solid data points to start a RAI argument in favor of the NO position.

Until Hard to Hit is errata'd (or at least faq'd), I will have a have a hard time saying anything more certain than 'maybe' to the RAW NO position

It looks like you're interpreting "Only shots that are Snap Shots can hit a flyer" this way:

If something is a shooting attack, it cannot hit unless it can Snap Shot, anything that's not a shooting attack doesn't suffer from this restriction.

I think you should be interpreting it this way:

If something cannot Snap Shot, it cannot hit

"Without other permission (reference Vector Strike)"

ETA for next poll by foolishmortal in 23:44:53 and counting...

Aren't shooting attacks generally optional (IE choice of whether to shoot or not and target)? Imotekh's special rule (attack/weapon if you want to call it that) isn't optional, you have to roll for each unit (just like a vehicle explosion), this also might open up issues with certain allies that are considered enemies. The reason I'd tie it into vehicle explosions is they both share the same lack of specficity in how to resolve wounding, neither one calls itself a shooting attack. Right now if I roll a 6 to hit an enemy infantry unit with imotekh's special rule and roll say a 3 causing 3 S8 hits, how do I know which models take the hits?


This is also interesing http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/482176.page I see it as relevant because to me it's "ok, how far do you really wanna push the premise that flyers and flying mc's are magic?"

 Crablezworth wrote:
Aren't shooting attacks generally optional (IE choice of whether to shoot or not and target)? Imotekh's special rule (attack/weapon if you want to call it that) isn't optional, you have to roll for each unit (just like a vehicle explosion), this also might open up issues with certain allies that are considered enemies. The reason I'd tie it into vehicle explosions is they both share the same lack of specficity in how to resolve wounding, neither one calls itself a shooting attack. Right now if I roll a 6 to hit an enemy infantry unit with imotekh's special rule and roll say a 3 causing 3 S8 hits, how do I know which models take the hits?


This is also interesing http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/482176.page I see it as relevant because to me it's "ok, how far do you really wanna push the premise that flyers and flying mc's are magic?"

the fact is that "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

So if it is not a snap shot, then it can not hit a zooming flyer (Unless it has specific permission to do so).

That humorous poll has little to do with the rule being discussed.

 DeathReaper wrote:

the fact is that "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

So if it is not a snap shot, then it can not hit a zooming flyer (Unless it has specific permission to do so).

Right, I'm with ya, when performing a shooting attack, snap shots are a requirement for hitting a flyer/flying mc. A vehicle exploding and or imotekh's special rule aren't shooting attacks, if they were we'd know how wounding works for them, we don't, if some rule defined them as such I'd agree with you.

If you want to take that and go to some tangent that because there is no method or direction for wounding they don't wound feel free.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

the fact is that "Only snap shots can hit Zooming Flyers..."

So if it is not a snap shot, then it can not hit a zooming flyer (Unless it has specific permission to do so).

Right, I'm with ya, when performing a shooting attack, snap shots are a requirement for hitting a flyer/flying mc. A vehicle exploding and or imotekh's special rule aren't shooting attacks, if they were we'd know how wounding works for them, we don't, if some rule defined them as such I'd agree with you.

If you want to take that and go to some tangent that because there is no method or direction for wounding they don't wound feel free.

Basically it boils down to this:

 DeathReaper wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:
4)LotS is not a shooting attack.

Since this is true.

Rule Book FAQ wrote:A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers"

And this is true.

Then this conclusion is true:

You can not affect a Zooming flyer with the LotS rule, since the LotS rule is not a shooting attack, and therefore can not make snap shots, which is the only thing that can hit a Zooming Flyer (without other specific permission (reference Vector Strike)).

 Zathras wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 Zathras wrote:
You do roll to hit with Imotekh's Lightning Attack....you need to roll a 6 on a D6 to affect enemy units with it. If you do hit then you generate the D6 hits. It's not automatic and therefore can affect flyers and FMCs.

That's not actually a 'to hit' roll. More like a roll to effect.

But you do roll to activate the power....it involves rolling dice and therefore does not hit/affect units automatically. Therefore it does not fall under the rule that prevents it from hitting Fliers and FMCs.

No imotehk a lightning clearly states all enemy units not engaged in close combat can be hit by the lightning so sorry my friend ur flyer can die as soon as it comes out if the necron players rolls are hot enough

Mentok wrote:
No imotehk a lightning clearly states all enemy units not engaged in close combat can be hit by the lightning so sorry my friend ur flyer can die as soon as it comes out if the necron players rolls are hot enough

The hard to hit rule is the more specific rule and in this case trumps the basic rules of the LoTS.

So specific in fact that it only adresses shooting attacks.

The same logic you're applying to something that isn't a shooting attack, you could apply to a get's hot result on a storm raven "well, the rulebook says I take a glancing hit but what does the rulebook know, only snap shots can hurt my flyers because.. magic"

 Crablezworth wrote:
So specific in fact that it only adresses shooting attacks.

The same logic you're applying to something that isn't a shooting attack, you could apply to a get's hot result on a storm raven "well, the rulebook says I take a glancing hit but what does the rulebook know, only snap shots can hurt my flyers because.. magic"

Gets hot is the more advanced rule.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So specific in fact that it only adresses shooting attacks.

The same logic you're applying to something that isn't a shooting attack, you could apply to a get's hot result on a storm raven "well, the rulebook says I take a glancing hit but what does the rulebook know, only snap shots can hurt my flyers because.. magic"

Its not magic, the FAQ is clear about hitting Flyers. This is simply a case where people are jumping on the bandwagon saying it does apply to LotS cause LotS is a special ability. Go read Doom Scythe thread about the Death Ray, being able to hit flyers, then go read Blood Lance (and I was for Lance working) ... etc... This is just another thread fishing for a loophole that GW has made clear doesnt exist. Only snap shots can hit Flyers and they use terms like "any weapon" and "any attack" which covers most ANYthing not already listed explicitly as not being able to hit like Mawloc or Bomb Squigs.

Things like Weapon special rules and the model's own special attacks are not part of this discussion, despite "polls" to bring them into it.

copper.talos wrote:ETA for next poll by foolishmortal in 23:44:53 and counting...

Fragile wrote:Things like Weapon special rules and the model's own special attacks are not part of this discussion, despite "polls" to bring them into it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfFanJackassery
http://xkcd.com/1095/

Fragile wrote:This is just another thread fishing for a loophole that GW has made clear doesnt exist. Only snap shots can hit Flyers and they use terms like "any weapon" and "any attack" which covers most ANYthing not already listed explicitly as not being able to hit like Mawloc or Bomb Squigs.

No, it's not. I can't speak for the intentions of anyone else, but all the same, I doubt you can either.

Here's how it's different. The lightning from Imotekh's LotS does not target/choose/nominate, nor does it use any form of geometric tool to determine what it hits. The same cannot be said of TftD, Bomb Squig, or Sweep Attack. LotS is different enough that I want to know which side of the RAW line it is on. So I participate in YMDC conversations about it. Sometimes I even put up polls. Not because they are admissible as evidence, but because they allow for more participation in the process.

I agree with the apparent general trend of GW in faqing things to limit things hitting zooming flyers. I have said so before, cited point in favor of it, and said that it is a reasonable RAI position.

I disagree with the idea of 'snap shots and specific permission only, logic and RAW be damned'. RAW, snap shots are required for shooting attacks attempting to hit flyers, per Hard to Hit p81. Faq entries on Mawloc, Squigs, and Sweep Attacks may signal a trend and an eventual future change of the RAW, but that change hasn't happened yet. Hard to Hit still says what it says, restricts what it restricts, and is silent on everything else.

From Hard to Hit and Gets Hot poll

foolishmortal wrote:The poll choices reflect the ridiculousness of the question. Of course Gets Hot hits a Zooming Flyer. I try to be unbiased, but I agree it is a dumb question, hence dumb answers.

This means you are trolling the whole forum. Bravo...

copper.talos wrote:
From Hard to Hit and Gets Hot poll

foolishmortal wrote:The poll choices reflect the ridiculousness of the question. Of course Gets Hot hits a Zooming Flyer. I try to be unbiased, but I agree it is a dumb question, hence dumb answers.

This means you are trolling the whole forum. Bravo...

“If the iron is hot, I desire to believe it is hot, and if it is cool, I desire to believe it is cool.”

If we are debating the state of the iron, you saying cold, me saying hot, and I can
...see how quickly steam boils off it in use
...smell the burning of cloth left beneath it for too long
...feel the roiling warm air near it
...see the tip of it glow dull red

After all this, if you still say "cold", I could ask you to grasp the iron and hold the metal to your flesh.

I would never ask this of you, or anyone.

Fortunately, asking someone to embrace a crazy idea to an extreme extent on the internet, is not permanently harmful. Being faced with the silly consequences of sloppy thinking is sometimes helpful.

I will of course comply with any posting policy here, but I do not believe that calling attention to a silly result of an overly broad statement is trolling, especially in the context of a rules discussion. Thank you for your concern about my conduct, but this is really not much more than a distraction. Do you have an answer to the question?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

*Rolls Eyes*
Just stop dude. The FAQ already clarified it to be attacks. I'm not going to play the semantics game with you.

Which FAQ? The oft cited one in this thread? So your statement of "never were ... In the first place" was wrong, because they were able to until the FAQ, right?

It'd be great if you could address my argument instead of just be rude to me though.

Edit: also, the Mawloc TfTD ability has still not been clarified as an attack, despite some people's assertions. What stops it from working is the Tyranid FAQ that says No. If the BRB FAQ was sufficient, the Nid one wouldn't be required.

Q: Are Zooming Flyers or Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures affected by Mawloc’s Terror From the Deep special rule? (p51)
A: No.

Q: Can I take cover saves from a Mawloc’s Terror from the Deep attack? (p51)
A: Yes.

I have seen the first of the two faq entries quoted in this thread, but I have not noticed anyone quote the second one. It refers to TftD as an attack, with no reference to shooting, close combat or PSA.

I'd forgotten about that one because it was old, thanks.
Your Gets Hot poll is irrelevant and trolling, in my opinion though. It's not an attack (in any way), it doesn't cause a hit (it causes a Glancing Hit - similar to causing a wound). It's closer to OM than anything else, and guess what does work against Flyers?

rigeld2 wrote:
I'd forgotten about that one because it was old, thanks.

No problem, I was looking through the thread, noticed it, and I had the Tyranid faq already open.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your Gets Hot poll is irrelevant and trolling, in my opinion though. It's not an attack (in any way), it doesn't cause a hit (it causes a Glancing Hit - similar to causing a wound).

I disagree sir. Look at the trend of the posts on this thread. Before I posted the Gets Hot question the standard line from the NO position was 'it's not a snap shot and it has no special permission.' Now the line is 'LotS's lightning is an attack that hits automatically, thus fall under the faq entry' (paraphrasing both)

I have changed the substantive point of the discussion. Incidentally, by focusing the NO position and citing the Mawloc faq entry that shows TftD as an attack, I have also nudged myself closer to the PRO position. I'm still having a hard time seeing how LotS falls under Hard to hit, but if it does, I can see a decently strong argument for the Snap Shot faq entry to forbid it.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's closer to OM than anything else, and guess what does work against Flyers?

What's OM?

Objuration Mechanicum - Telekenisis power, page 422.

Show how a hit and a glancing hit are the same and ill agree that your Gets Hot poll isn't irrelevant and trolling.

When you said "It's closer to OM than anything else", I see now you meant Gets Hot, not LotS. I agree, they are similar.

I've tried to ask gently before, but received no answer. Why is the Gets Hot question trolling? Was it the humor? Is there a guideline I can look at?

Read my OP in that thread. I asked a realistic question to illustrate the lack of rules coherency in a position several people were taking.

As Centurian99 wrote, "I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea -- a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers

foolishmortal wrote:
When you said "It's closer to OM than anything else", I see now you meant Gets Hot, not LotS. I agree, they are similar.

I've tried to ask gently before, but received no answer. Why is the Gets Hot question trolling? Was it the humor? Is there a guideline I can look at?

Read my OP in that thread. I asked a realistic question to illustrate the lack of rules coherency in a position several people were taking.

As Centurian99 wrote, "I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea -- a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers

It's trolling because its absolutely nothing like the current situation, and it cannot be correct - because Gets Hot is not a hit, so isn't affected by Hard to Hit at all. All you're doing is mocking the situation and not bringing and rules support to your side of the argument.
It's not a realistic question. There's no lack of rules coherency except what you're attempting to insert.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's trolling because its absolutely nothing like the current situation

I was told over and over on this very page (11) that "if it is not a snap shot, then it can not hit a zooming flyer (Unless it has specific permission to do so)"

I brought up the Ork Blitza-Bommer first (S9 hit) , but most people don't have the White Dwarf rules.

Gets Hot causes a hit. A glancing hit is still a hit.